DEAR INVESTORS: Herewith is the report you requested, well in advance of the August 2006 deadline: TO THE DEGREE CLIMATE CHANGE PRODUCES MORE HURRICANES AND TSUNAMIS WE WILL SUSTAIN LOSSES PROPORTIONAL TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE. WE ARE TRYING TO RAISE OUR PRICING TO REFLECT THIS CONTINGENT RISK, BUT MARKET FORCES WON\’T LET US. OUR ACTUARIALS ARE TRYING TO ASSESS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN WARMER WEATHER AND MELTING INSURANCE PREMIUMS; MEANWHILE OUR FINANCIAL GUYS ARE TRYING TO CORNER THE MARKET ON DRY ICE. Sincerely, INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Considering that the industry only produced a ROE of 7%in 2004, property values have skyrocketed, buiding material costs have significantly increased and are increasing due to worldwide catastrophes over the past few years, medical costs continue to spiral upward and the P & C market is beginning to soften siginificantly, shouldn\’t someone asks those same CEOs if a softening of the market is premature and if they have given adequate consideration as to what impact inflationary pressures will have on future underwriting results and investments — specifically the bond market.
Would it make sense for the Insurance Industry to lobby Washington to protect the environment against Global Warming (if that is indeed the cause of these hurricanes)? I don\’t think the Industry can stand another storm season like 2005. AIG will be the only one left standing.
Lobby for tort reform, if anything. Hurricanes will not kill the insurance industry so much as the litigation therefrom. If we all ride our bikes to work starting tomorrow, we\’ll still have a hurricane season next year, and we\’ll run to the courts in ever greater numbers trying to blame a fellow human being–with and insurance policy–for the negligence of Mother Nature.
Tell you what folks, take a look at my next IRMI article which will be published in two weeks, perhaps you\’ll find the answer to much of this problem. Or – if not the answer, at least an alternative methodology which may be just a bit outside of the box. Why is it, that every potential risk, needs to be solved by insurance, government intervention, or looking for another donation.
DEAR INVESTORS: Herewith is the report you requested, well in advance of the August 2006 deadline: TO THE DEGREE CLIMATE CHANGE PRODUCES MORE HURRICANES AND TSUNAMIS WE WILL SUSTAIN LOSSES PROPORTIONAL TO THE CLIMATE CHANGE. WE ARE TRYING TO RAISE OUR PRICING TO REFLECT THIS CONTINGENT RISK, BUT MARKET FORCES WON\’T LET US. OUR ACTUARIALS ARE TRYING TO ASSESS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN WARMER WEATHER AND MELTING INSURANCE PREMIUMS; MEANWHILE OUR FINANCIAL GUYS ARE TRYING TO CORNER THE MARKET ON DRY ICE. Sincerely, INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Considering that the industry only produced a ROE of 7%in 2004, property values have skyrocketed, buiding material costs have significantly increased and are increasing due to worldwide catastrophes over the past few years, medical costs continue to spiral upward and the P & C market is beginning to soften siginificantly, shouldn\’t someone asks those same CEOs if a softening of the market is premature and if they have given adequate consideration as to what impact inflationary pressures will have on future underwriting results and investments — specifically the bond market.
Would it make sense for the Insurance Industry to lobby Washington to protect the environment against Global Warming (if that is indeed the cause of these hurricanes)? I don\’t think the Industry can stand another storm season like 2005. AIG will be the only one left standing.
Lobby for tort reform, if anything. Hurricanes will not kill the insurance industry so much as the litigation therefrom. If we all ride our bikes to work starting tomorrow, we\’ll still have a hurricane season next year, and we\’ll run to the courts in ever greater numbers trying to blame a fellow human being–with and insurance policy–for the negligence of Mother Nature.
Tell you what folks, take a look at my next IRMI article which will be published in two weeks, perhaps you\’ll find the answer to much of this problem. Or – if not the answer, at least an alternative methodology which may be just a bit outside of the box. Why is it, that every potential risk, needs to be solved by insurance, government intervention, or looking for another donation.
This is the other side of the insurance story that policy holders and their pandering politicians refuse to acknowlege